What evidence is there for Jesus (NOT USING THE BIBLE)?

by punkofnice 139 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Christ Alone

  Untrue.

  Some have disputed this. But according to the book, "A concise history of the Christian church" by R. A Baker:

  Irenaeus also quotes from, or alludes to, almost all the documents that become the orthodox NT. These citations are mostly from Pauline works (25+ occurrences from each of these: Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians and Ephesians). His Pauline citations/allusions include all three "Pastoral" epistles. The other general NT letters get scant recognition and a few are totally absent (Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude). He also refers to a few non-NT documents as “inspired” (1 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas).

  By the time we come to the end of the second century and look at the citations of Clement of Alexandria(writings cir. 195-202) and Tertullian (writings cir. 205-225) we find hundreds of references from almost every NT document. The NT writings that are excluded by these two men are very similar to that of Irenaeus, but Clement then includes many writings as “scripture” that did not get final acceptance. One can take the citations from Clement and Tertullian and reconstruct the entire NT excluding the 4 or 5 small epistles which they neglect. Indeed, this is a very important factor from this point forward - “Did Clement/Tertullian cite from it?” These are the first two prolific Christian writers. From this point forward we find an increasing number of fathers writings great numbers of documents filled with biblical citations.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  By the time we come to the end of the second century and look at the citations of Clement of Alexandria(writings cir. 195-202) and Tertullian (writings cir. 205-225) we find hundreds of references from almost every NT document.

  References from most NT books is not the same as being able to re-construct the whole thing.
• 

  Christ Alone

  The church fathers and the writings you refer to are the ones that won. You are ignoring all of the other versions of Christianity from the same time period that didn't win and aren't well known.

  I'm not talking about doctrine or even books of the Bible winning. What doctrine or book of the NT am I trying to prove here? We're discussing proof outside of the NT that Jesus existed. And my comment is that we have very early church fathers attesting to his existence. Jesus was not a construct of late century writing. We have 1st and 2nd century attestation of him. Maybe not exactly how we view him today, but we have knowledge of his existence.

  But if you insist on talking about church fathers, give me an earlier church father than any of the ones I've mentioned that "didn't win".
• 

  Christ Alone

  Keep reading, EP.

  " One can take the citations from Clement and Tertullian and reconstruct the entire NT excluding the 4 or 5 small epistles which they neglect."
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  I'm not talking about doctrine or even books of the Bible winning.

  I wasn't talking about books of the Bible winning either.

  We're discussing proof outside of the NT that Jesus existed. And my comment is that we have very early church fathers attesting to his existence.

  They weren't around to see or hear him. Why does their attestation matter?

  But if you insist on talking about church fathers, give me an earlier church father than any of the ones I've mentioned that "didn't win".

  You brought them up. Strawman to say I am the insisting on it. Besides, as I said, there were hundreds of variants of Christianity you ignored that said wildly different things about Jesus that the church fathers did. That was my point.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Keep reading, EP.

  " One can take the citations from Clement and Tertullian and reconstruct the entire NT excluding the 4 or 5 small epistles which they neglect."

  Why? It's false.
• 

  PSacramento

  It is important to understand that in the early church there was no "powerhouse" religious group/heirachy that was telling people what was the "officially approved" bboks and letters they could read. They were too bust trying to survive persecution and such.

  It was a gradual process over the centuries that finally cumulated in the NT Canon as the RCC has it.

  It was a collection of books that were BY THAT TIME viewed as authoritive, they did NOT become authorative when they were proclaimed "canon".

  The books and letters that felled by the wayside did so because they were deemed less authorative.
• 

  Christ Alone

  They weren't around to see or hear him. Why does their attestation matter?

  And we weren't around to see or hear Ganghis Kahn, yet I can write an article about him now using older writings based on even older writings about him.

  It's hard to come up with a proper illustration about this because we are not an oral traditional society. But the Jews and early Christians were. And a study of oral tradition shows that it can be passed on without any major changes. That's the way oral societies worked.

  I'm trying to get clear what you are arguing. Are you claiming that there was not a historical Jesus? Or are you claiming that he wasn't the one that began the CHristian movement? What are you arguing here?
• 

  Christ Alone

  Why? It's false.

  Any desire to demonstrate how?
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  And we weren't around to see or hear Ganghis Kahn, yet I can write an article about him now using older writings based on even older writings about him.

  Why are you trying to create a false equivalency between "we" and the church fathers?

  It's hard to come up with a proper illustration about this because we are not an oral traditional society.

  Come on, man. You went on and on about writings and using them and now all of the sudden it's the oral tradition copout?

  I'm trying to get clear what you are arguing. Are you claiming that there was not a historical Jesus? Or are you claiming that he wasn't the one that began the CHristian movement? What are you arguing here?

  I've wrote it once.